Most of the officials President Barack Obama announced Thursday as his latest nominees for top national-security posts are heavy hitters likely to sail through confirmation in the Senate.

By tapping veteran Washington hand and CIA Director Leon Panetta to head the Defense Department and signing up widely respected Gen. David Petraeus to run the Central Intelligence Agency, Obama is making a series of safe, no-drama choices to ride out the remainder of his first term.

Obama also named former U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, and Deputy Centcom commander Lt. Gen. John Allen to replace Petraeus as U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

However, even the most esteemed nominees come with some drawbacks. Here’s a look at what each of the “new” appointees brings to Obama — and the potential downsides:

Leon Panetta, nominee for Secretary of Defense, to replace Robert Gates

What he brings Obama:

Panetta’s impressive resume, including stints as a congressman, House Budget Committee chairman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, White House chief of staff and CIA director, make him an obvious choice to manage the new round of budget cuts that Obama recently decided to impose on the Pentagon as part of his debt-reduction plan.

Explaining the nominations to reporters Wednesday, a senior administration official noted the planned security-related cuts of $400 billion over 12 years.

“Director Panetta’s experience as a manager and a manager of very large budgets, someone who is familiar with large organizations and has the ability to lead those organizations and implement strategy in those organizations, is a real strength that he brings here,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“Gates is a very hard guy to replace because of his breadth of experience,” said former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin. “Panetta could be kind of in Gates’s league. … Gates never served in Congress. Leon did. Gates never ran OMB. Leon did. I think Leon has the same wise man quality to him.”

Panetta also was Gates’s choice for a successor, said a Gates aide, who added that the defense secretary recommended Panetta to Obama about six months ago.

The downside:

Some see Panetta as a caretaker whose track record suggests he’s unlikely to bring transformative change to the military.

“For the people who remember the Vietnam era, the appointment will seem like a Clark Clifford redux,” Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank said of the Johnson-era defense secretary. “Obama needs somebody to replace Gates until the end of his first term, and Panetta is a safe choice. Everybody will like him. Part of the reason why is he’s not going to shake up the status quo.”

Without significant changes, budget cuts might be implemented in an across-the-board fashion, which Gates has warned would hollow out the military.

While Panetta gets generally good marks for his leadership of the CIA, the task of running the Pentagon is far more complex — especially when the pork-barrel politics related to defense spending are taken into account.

Members of Congress, even prominent Republicans, hailed Panetta’s nomination, but some defense experts think his ability to persuade GOP lawmakers to accept painful cuts could be exaggerated. “If you want to cut the defense budget, the technical accounting side is in some ways simpler than the political side,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think Panetta buys you that much by way of the politics of cutting the defense budget. … There are a lot of people I can think of — Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman … Jack Reed — who would have more credibility on assuring hawks that cuts are being done carefully.”

David Petraeus, nominee for CIA director, to replace Panetta

What he brings Obama: An intimate familiarity with two of the biggest conflicts the U.S. has faced in recent years: Iraq and Afghanistan.

“He’s not about to get the wool pulled over his head,” O’Hanlon said.

Petraeus also has developed a keen understanding of what the CIA does and what it needs to do for recipients of its intelligence.

“Over the last ten years, the military and the CIA have drawn closer and closer together, largely as a result of these two wars,” former deputy CIA director John McLaughlin said. “The military and the CIA have been cheek-and-jowl ever since Iraq. … There’s a comfort level between these two cultures that is more developed than it was some years ago.”

A senior administration official said Petraeus got the nod in part for “taking on some of the most difficult missions with a record of tremendous results.”

One side benefit: The nomination also could scratch Petraeus’s name from the list of potential Republican opponents for Obama in next year’s election.

The downside:

Sending Petraeus anywhere is a risk at a time when U.S. military gains are fragile and insurgents have managed some feats, such as the recent Kandahar prison break.

In addition, some national security experts say Petraeus could be inclined to sugar-coat intelligence about Iraq and Afghanistan because of the key role he played in military strategy there.

“If you believe the reports that the president didn’t like the options he was being provided by the military in Afghanistan, it’s hard to see why you’d take the commander who headed up the Afghan war and put him in charge of the daily intelligence flow to the president,” Thompson said. “Gen. Petraeus had very strong convictions about the primacy of counterinsurgency warfare, the whole role of nation building and how overseas contingency operations can be won. Inevitably, if he goes to the CIA, those priorities are going to be reflected in the daily intelligence. … I’m genuinely mystified by the selection of Petraeus.”

Sending a combat commander to run the CIA also could stoke long-running concerns about the intelligence community being under the influence, if not the control, of the military. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued a statement Wednesday, expressing “enormous respect” for Petraeus but noting that commanding troops “is a different role than leading the top civilian intelligence agency.”

In a statement last year about the nomination of retired Lt. Gen. James Clapper to be director of National Intelligence, Feinstein was more blunt. “It will be important that any nominee is not beholden to the Pentagon’s interests and can, as needed, provide balance to civilian and military interests in carrying out the nation’s intelligence missions,” she warned.

Former CIA officer Bob Baer said the militarization of the CIA is a legitimate worry.

“That should be a concern. You’ve got now the three pillars of the intelligence community are all military. … You’ve got a CIA essentially the handmaiden to the military,” he said.

Despite the close ties, he said, there is still a culture clash between the military and the CIA.

“I’ve never seen a general come into the CIA and understand the culture. … There are guys who don’t salute, who are terrible at PowerPoint presentations, guys who are out of shape, but they’re defiant,” Baer said. “A lot of military officers just hate it.”

Thompson also says that what looks like a suave political move to sideline Petraeus could backfire. He could “resign in a huff over some disagreement on Afghan policy and do something very injurious to the president’s reelection campaign,” the analyst said.

Ryan Crocker, nominee for U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, to replace Karl Eikenberry

What he brings Obama: A strong track record from Iraq and a personality that might mesh more with Karzai than did Eikenberry. Those two didn’t get along well, and Karzai reportedly has frozen Eikenberry out since Bob Woodward reported that Eikenberry made references to the Afghan leader being “off his meds.”

The downside: Diplomacy is all about individuals. What worked for Crocker with Iraqi leaders might not fly in Afghanistan. And Karzai is clearly a difficult man for U.S. officials to deal with — probably more complicated than the Iraqi officials Crocker deftly handled.

Lt. Gen. John Allen, nominee for U.S. commander in Afghanistan, to replace Petraeus

What he brings Obama: Experience using counterinsurgency strategies to subdue the violence in Iraq’s restive Al-Anbar province. And, according to the White House and Pentagon, Allen has the unanimous backing of senior military leaders. “He was the first choice for this position and would be the nominee in all events as the first choice of Secretary Gates, Chairman [Mike] Mullen, Gen. [James] Mattis, and Gen. Petraeus,” a senior White House official told reporters.

The downside: As a lower-profile figure than Petraeus, Allen could have trouble getting his advice or requests taken seriously by stronger voices inside the administration, particularly as sensitive decisions are made about the pace of troop withrdawals.

Also, the Marine general has never been stationed in Afghanistan. “It’s a wee bit frustrating that ten years into this thing, we’re still asking commanders — two in a row now — to learn on the job,” O’Hanlon said.

O’Hanlon called Allen “very capable,” but added: “I do think losing Petraeus is a hit. … I’m not so sure that [Allen’s] success in Iraq’s Al-Anbar province will necessarily transfer to Afghanistan.”